Monday, November 25, 2013

Baroness Warsi, are these people Muslims?

Last week, UKIP's Lord Pearson of Rannoch raised a question in the House of Lords: "To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the basis for the statement by the Prime Minister on 3 June that 'There is nothing in Islam that justifies acts of terror'." He explained:

“But there is a problem within Islam—from the adherents of an ideology that is a strain within Islam. And we have to put it on the table and be honest about it.

Of course there are Christian extremists and Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu ones. But I am afraid this strain is not the province of a few extremists. It has at its heart a view about religion and about the interaction between religion and politics that is not compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies.

At the extreme end of the spectrum are terrorists, but the world view goes deeper and wider than it is comfortable for us to admit. So by and large we don’t admit it. This has two effects. First, those with that view think we are weak and that gives them strength.

Second, those within Islam—and the good news is there are many—who actually know this problem exists and want to do something about it, lose heart”.

Those are not my words but those of Tony Blair, after the Islamist murder last summer of Drummer Rigby—the same Tony Blair who, as Prime Minister, dismantled our borders to,

“rub the noses of the right in diversity”.

We must be grateful that his subsequent experience as our Middle East envoy has taught him something about the reality of modern Islam, and that he had the courage to say what he did. In these few minutes, I want to talk about some of that reality.

Islam does not enjoy the separation of powers that we take for granted in our liberal, western democracies. Islam’s Sharia law is a legal, political and religious system all in one, which takes its authority solely from the Koran, the Hadith and the Sunnah, as interpreted by its religious clerics, collectively known as the ulema.

Our Muslim friends tell us that the jihadists are a misguided minority who misinterpret the Koran and the holy texts. They point to verses such as Surah 2, verse 256, in which Muhammad commands that there shall be no compulsion in religion, and to other verses of peace. There are millions of Muslims who live their lives guided by those verses, and many thousands who have been murdered by their violent co-religionists.

Baroness Warsi was having none of this ignorant islamophobic racist bigotry:

...if Islam justified terror, we would not have seen the out-and-out condemnation of this brutal murder by the British Muslim community.

After that attack, we saw the Ramadhan Foundation, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Christian Muslim Forum, MINAB, the Al-Khoei Foundation, the British Muslim Forum, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association, the Karima Institute, the Islamic Forum of Europe and many, many others come out and say, “Not in our name”. They were united with the country in grief and horror at what happened on a London street. I wholeheartedly support this clear and unequivocal condemnation.

And she swatted away Lord Pearson's superficial theology with an authoritative appeal to The West Wing:

President Bartlet: “I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination”.

President Bartlet: “Yes it does. Leviticus 18:22. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?”. While thinking about that, can I ask you another question? My Chief of Staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here’s one that’s really important because we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?”.

I could not make this point more clearly. These texts from the Old Testament could so easily be manipulated to cause mischief and indeed have been manipulated in the past. But being religious means making choices and understanding the central values of your faith. It also means considering the context in which that faith was formed.

And the Noble Baroness concluded:

As many noble Lords have said in this debate Islam, like all world religions, neither supports, nor advocates, nor condones terrorism. I am saying that the values of al-Qaeda and like-minded terrorists are not only contrary to what we as a country stand for, they are a distortion of the Islamic tradition itself. Al-Qaeda’s ideology is fundamentally at odds with both classical and contemporary Islamic jurisprudence. That is why the majority of Muslims across the globe reject their ideology.

But Lord Pearson of Rannoch was irked:

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, she has not answered the two questions that I put to her. I believe that I am in order to repeat them.. Will the noble Baroness answer the two questions I put to her?

And the Noble Baroness waffled on:

Everyone in this house knows Muslims in British life—doctors, engineers, scientists, journalists, MPs, teachers, business people, local councillors and so on...

And on and on..

An exasperated Lord Pearson intervened:

With respect, that does not answer the question. The question I put to the noble Baroness was about the persecution of Christians, to which she so bravely referred in Georgetown last Friday. Is it or is it not mostly the work of the jihadists? That was the question I put to her.

And so she did:

It was mostly the work of extremists who do not follow any faith, as far as I am concerned.

So, those who burn down churches, blow people up or cut their heads off while quoting the Qur'an, declaiming "Allahu Akbar" and invoking the name of Mohammed are not Muslims at all: they are really followers of no faith: they are secularists or humanist atheists; buddies of Professor Dawkins.

This is the socio-religio-political depth of understanding of the UK’s first ever Minister for Faith and Communities. She says it is her job "to ensure that freedom of religion and belief remains at the top of the Government’s agenda both at home and internationally".
But while doing that, there can be no scrutiny of the virulent salafi-wahhabi strain of Sunni Islam, for, to her, that is not Islam at all. And even to mention the possibility that it might be invites allegations of bigotry. These 'extremists' are simply not true Muslims and are completely ignorant of the real Islam.

And yet.. and yet..

At a Muslim Peace Conference in Norway (yes, a peace conference in Europe), when asked if the Muslims in attendance agreed that adulterous women ought to be stoned, the speaker praises Allah that all the men's hands were raised. His Grace says "men's hands", for there appears to be no gender diversity at this gathering. Unless, of course, the women were in the basement. When asked if they believed in the strict separation of men and women, all hands again were raised (except the bloke on the front line, whom the speaker ignores). This video is not of a group of 'extremists', but ordinary believers in a run-of-the-mill expression of moderate Islam.

These ordinary, everyday moderate Muslims want sharia law in their country; not secular democracy and human rights. The moderate and enlightened speaker mocks the media portrayal of their beliefs as 'extreme'.
One wonders, if they had been asked, whether all hands would have been raised to affirm the death penalty for apostasy. Surely, if stoning women for adultery is considered just, then hanging for apostasy or blasphemy is a fortiori the will of Allah. And it is a very small step indeed from that belief to burning down the odd church and beheading the occasional kafir.

There lies the difference between Islam's & Christianity. Islam "says Judge & kill", Jesus says "Let he who is Without sin (SINLESS) cast the first stone". Paul says "ALL have SINNED & fallen short of the glory of God".

When I did teacher training in the fairly distant past part of that training in my second subject- R.E.- involved meeting groups of other faiths. Our encounter with Muslim women was memorable and somewhat shocking. They were native British converts so were possibly a bit odder than usual, "foolish Galatians" who had swopped the possibility of Grace and attempting good through gratitude for a religion of works and attempting to do all the Muslim bits perfectly.

They informed us that it was wicked and depraved that we were taught in mixed classes, for real men should have been consumed with lust in such a scenario, and women should be unable to concentrate also. When told we did not have such problems they informed us the men were emasculated and it was wicked what we were doing to them, but they implied that we were probably not telling the truth!!

We were also told in no uncertain terms that the cross was an abomination and anyone wearing it was blaspheming Jesus by saying he was a failure, and that their texts on Jesus were better.

No one should doubt that were Islam to gain regional ascendancy in any sufficiently large area many innocent pleasures that we take for granted and that we and our ancestors have enjoyed in the land of our birth for generations would be destroyed in that area. For women that would be going unveiled and feeling the wind on your face. And don't think our dog-walking culture would emerge unscathed. Don't think pigs would remain. The sight of a Muslim woman dressed from head to foot in severe black with a full niqab in the middle of a large green verdant English country house garden in the middle of Summer was a visual shocker to me and just showed how vastly incompatible our assumptions are.

There are some Muslims who fit in very well, and I have enjoyed knowing them and socialising with them, but they are a cultured nuanced, liberal, and educated minority. And even some of them had to explain to scandalised relations in another part of the world why it was OK for their kids to have pets and attend Christian worship from time to time.

You should not find it strange that baroness Warsi should propound some strange views about the Muslim faith, denying any connection between her faith and terrorism.

If you believe that the Muslim faith is a religion of peace, you have to believe as she does - and she wouldn't have got her present job if she thought any different.

What you should find strange is that in a country like England, which has a shared ethos with Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland when it comes to faith and which has been built on the foundation of Christianity, which permeates throughout our institutions, our law and our form of government, some idiot has appointed a Muslim as Minister for faith.

I put it no higher than stupidity, though a good case could be made for something more malicious.

A knowledge of political manoeuvres and a desire to forward the multicultural agenda should not trump common sense. I recommend a sabbatical(!) of at least a year, to be spent in Saudi Arabia, for anyone claiming the inherent peacefulness of Islam. Oh, and to be fair, take your Bible, your Koran and your copy of Dawkins latest in your hand-luggage.

That Warsi remains in a position of government is a stain upon the coalition.

Mind you, despite her many and clear flaws, some of us might think that having any minister for faith is a stain on the coalition.

I hasten to add, despite my atheist conviction which leads me to seek to argue against faith, as a secularist I would also consider that a minister against faith would also be a stain on any government.

British Muslim consumers are a growing, influential and extremely loyal group, making them a desirable market for mainstream moderation.

But reaching them requires more than launching Sharia-compliant ideas. Making inroads into this sector takes deep understanding of the values of this community and building the new homogenous 'British muslim' brand from there.

Perhaps all that's needed is Islamic marketing companies such as Muxlim, to promote this new 'peace loving' brand of muslim. How fortunate are we that, happily, it is the only one that has landed in the UK. *peace be upon us*

A new media marketing campaign just in time for Christmas.

"Muslim’s Christ did not die Day seasonal festivities campaign"

"It's not just a trip down memory lane” to promote the values of Allah and Mohammed."

"This is not just Islam, this is Masochistic & Sadistic Islam" or "‘Qu'ran, worth every Sunni’"

The 'British' moderates will also emphasise their ethical stance amongst the populace with the use of the marketing slogan

“Beheading, burning, stoning and exploding...Just doing the right thing!”, "Islam, bringing more than Turkey Tikka Masala and Poppadums to the Party with Mohammed's 'Party Pooper' ballistics. The amazing party popper ballistics fizzes out ball bearing and nail confetti - how clever is that?!"

You've hit the philosophical nail on the head, says it all really, as to how our political arrangements have a Scriptural bedrock of support, and a very pragmatic one as well. Like its cousin, Greek Dualism, separation of State and Faith, has its weaknesses. But after the bloodshed of the Wars of Religion on the continent, and our smaller scale Civil War, a way forward to enable Catholics, Anglicans and Dissenters to live in peace, if not total social harmony, was desperately needed. The country yearned for an end to armed conflict. And in contrast to the all encompassing medieval world view of Church and State being totally intertwined, the words of Christ Himself gave us the clue as to how significant differences of outlook could be accommodated, in the same nation. And it worked well ! Which is always the test. Ireland did not enjoy such tolerance, sadly. Like The Enlightenment our democracy grew out of the soil of Christian tolerance, although we made a few mistakes along the way to that. It needs defending. Are the politicians up to it ? Do they understand how we get to where we are, which although far from perfect, is inestimably better than many areas of the world.

It appears that our children will be classed as 'Racist Bigots' and receive a "racial discrimination note" placed on their education file until they leave state education, if WE , their parents, deny them and fall to pay for a school trip promoting Islam at a religious workshop about Islam. ?

" Defending the decision Mrs Small said that exposing the pupils to other faiths was part of the school's statutory duty.

She said: "We are a mainly Christian school, but we have to cover at least one other religion as part of the national curriculum.This visit is part of that.

"They would not be taking part in any religious practices. We have had similar workshops on a variety of religions in the past - including one on Islam with no problems at all and the children have absolutely loved it.

"We have pupils and teachers at the school who belong to the Islam faith and it is right for the children to understand and appreciate their faith as well as their own." Further...The workshop is at Staffordshire University and will give your child the opportunity to explore other religions. Children will be looking at religious artefacts similar to those that would be on display in a museum. they will not be partaking in any religious practices." What might these artefacts be..A stone, A sharp knife or sword or the blessed 1lb of halal semtex and timer"?

Wonder what would occur if Muslims were asked to attend a trip to an Anglican cathedral or site?

Since when has Islam been a race.?

The traitors in our midst act like Britain has already been conquered by Muslims a prori and are therefore forced to make British children submit to Islam.

How much longer must this go on..It is no longer in the Western elite’s mere indifference to the impending demise of Christianity in the lands of its birth and the slaughter of believers in the place they originated in while Mohammed was a mere twinkle in his father's cursed eye, but in its active, ongoing, and open contribution to that demise, with numpties like Warsi lying about the aims of her religion, mainstream media ignoring it wholesale and gullible people swallowing it.

Your Grace, it is hard to avoid the possibility that the Baroness Warsi practices dissembling in these matters as an act of survival. After all, being of Pakistani descent, she may be fearful of becoming a British Benazir Bhutto.

Couple the contradictions in the Qur’an arising from its author’s changes of mind with the book’s understanding attitude towards deception—[16:106] ‘Those who are forced to recant while their hearts remain loyal to the faith shall be absolved’—and you have a religion that can quote peaceful teachings while practising violence and then lie about it with a clear conscience.

Thus can Baroness Warsi and the Muslim Council of Britain, etc, condemn the Woolwich atrocity while happily worshipping the god who condones it. Hypocrisy on such a scale warps the mind and Western civilization is doing itself no favours by dismantling its freedoms to accommodate Islam. Tolerance has its limits and we have gone far beyond them.

I'm afraid that you come across quite a few teachers like this at some primary schools. They spend so much time with little kids who think they are almost always right that they begin to assume that this is right, and become mini-Hitlers.

What was particularly chilling this time was that they went so far as threatening parents who might sign their kids off sick to avoid the event, by saying that they wanted to scrutinise sick notes as well as that horrid "racist" labelling.

I hope the teachers concerned get "strong totalitarian tendencies" stuck on their files for the rest of their teaching careers. They didn't even want the non-confrontational get out of parents letting their children be "sick" rather than attend what feels as if it crossed the line between an educational and an evangelistic Muslim event.

Cross that line as a Christian with schoolchildren and they virtually stick you in front of a firing squad. You always have to say "Christians believe that" or "In the Book/ Gospel/Letter of person X writes that..." Something makes me suspect that the Islamic workshop probably did not do the same. Indeed it would be peppered with "peace be upon him" whilst the Christian equaivalent of such a phrase peppering a lesson on Christianity would definitely NOT be allowed.

Most trips out to the mosque involve kids with nothing to see except a big big carpet and a row of taps, which most find of very limited interest; the rest of the time is spent on telling them how wonderful Islam is roughly speaking. That's what my children said. They learned that they found it very unenjoyable!!

So correct me if I'm wrong, but in a nut shell, the argument put forward by the Minister is that :

1) being religious is all about picking and choosing and to her that's taking the 'nice' bits of her own religion and applying them to life.

2) furthermore anyone who disagrees with point 1 is Islamohobic

and

3) the people who take the not so nice bits of the religion literally or at least hold them up along with the nice bits are not true followers of her faith.

The problem is that on some casual evidence based research, where Islam is the dominant or majority religion, it applies all the 'bad' bits she doesn't like, along with the apparent 'good' bits (it's not clear what the good bits are as she doesn't articulate them), such as stoning, wife beating, appalling treatment of women as 'property', beheading, non-Muslims treated as second class citizens at best, poverty, illiteracy, low economic growth, war, violence & when there is a chance of throwing off the yoke of a secular dictatorship, the government is replaced with an even worse theocracy... that's before we get onto the subject of terrorism, martyrdom operations and chucking rockets at people's homes and whether or not the koran sanctions such stuff.

The other thing that bothered me with Warsi's argument is how much the West Wing quote really defeats her own eventual argument of :

"being religious means making choices and understanding the central values of your faith"

Except that

1)President Bartlett in the West Wing makes the TV presenter out to be a hypocrite for not following the other parts of the bible he quotes at her, for Bartlett, the very fact of 'picking and choosing' of faith is as negative as the bits the TV presenter does follow, opposite to Warsi's suggestion that people should indeed pick and choose the 'nice bits' of faith.

2) the TV presenter in the West Wing has clearly made a choice there and certainly has a clear understanding of the central values of her faith and likewise this could be said of her not really, co-religionists.

Goodness! Well there's a flap on here in Barchester - at least there is in the Cathedral Precinct. My Lord Bishop recently advertised for a Diocesan Director of Schools, and our local imam, Mustafa Fatwah, applied! In his letter he writes '...I have been inspired by Baroness Warsi...' which in my book would send his application to the bottom of the pile, but these are strange times indeed, so he was called for an interview. 'And where do you stand on Christianity?' asked Archdeacon Grantly. 'Right on its throat,' answered Mr. Fatwah. The Archdeacon turned puce and had to be revived with smelling salts. He did not get the job, but naturally is appealing. That, however, is a matter of opinion!

The problem with "making choices" is that a choice implies a selection criteria. You must employ a standard to separate wheat from chaff. Religion is supposed to be logically prior to that standard. In informs the moral decisions you make. But now we are told that our religion itself must itself be normed. By what? And by what authority? This the question that is never answered.

And assumed unspecified standard is in play in this discussion. In the western world, that unspecified standard assumes that freedom is the greatest good and defines freedom as autonomy. The "nice bits" of religion are those parts that re-enforce human autonomy. The "not so nice bits" are those parts that place limits on human autonomy. This is why liberal religion is so compatible with the post Modern West. Liberal religion is essentially the worship of human autonomy.

What we have is a demand that religion subjugate itself to modern dogmas about man's moral freedom. That's the unspecified standard. Western Man has abandoned the hope of finding truth, and in epistemological despair, has responded by deifying each individual as his own revelator of individual truth. To deny this is to blaspheme the new god.

Autonomy is the Last Redoubt of the Secular World. Every other solution it has tried has failed. This will fail as well. A culture that believes nothing cannot sustain itself. And that is why the West is in such a dreadful cultural state. It's impossible to sustain a civilization on a Creed of "I believe I will have another drink."

Yes, post-modern man, "disenchanted" first with Faith, turned to the Enlightenment and Modernism, but 300 years later, become equally disillusioned with the fruits of value free Science and Technology, the Grand Modernization Project, and so has abandoned the quest for "truth". Liberal religion provides a comforting balm, but its main message is "make it up as you go along", it's adaptable, but reject upholding Scripture, or Tradition, or even just sound science sometimes, as in," ignore it when it gets in the way". Truth is relative, and all those sort of vacuous noises, represents a belief system leading nowhere other than to despair and confusion. It has the whiff of death about it. We must find new ways to proclaim old truths.

Most adverse comments are directed at ignorant school-teachers, Baroness Warsi and her c0-religionists in Parliament or the Muslim faith in general. Why are there so few aimed at those English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish parliamentarians who support or condone or ignore the decisions being made by OUR OWN representatives which have caused the problem?

When will intelligent people begin to recognise that the treason which destroys a nation by rotting it from within is the hallmark of the decisions being made in our name.

The simple reason is because we weren't discussing treason etc. You've just brought it up mow, which I suspect is another way of wanting to discuss the topic of immigration generally. We were, however, discussing the debate between Lord Pearson and Baroness Warsi regarding Islam.

Explorer @ 12.41, you are almost certainly right. The problem is so intractable that it is far easier to pretend it does not exist. Leave it to the children and grandchildren to sort out. A completely dishonest approach that stems from wilful and culpable self-deception on the part of today's political class.

I am not talking about immigration only, for that is only one aspect of the problem which we face.

What concerns me more is the fact that so many current difficulties facing the nation have arisen because those elected to govern us have, either through ignorance or carelessness or malicious intent, acted unconstitutionally, turning their backs on the safeguards for the citizens against despots, Royal or Common, which our written constitution provides.

It was treason for parliament to surrender the sovereignty of this nation to a foreign power.

How can a Muslim Minister honestly swear the oath to the Monarch which such office requires, knowing that the Monarch has sworn to uphold the Protestant faith as part of Her Oath to the people?

Who is breaking faith at that point and who has placed them in that untenable position?

Treason is to imagine the monarch's death. Can you imagine a society acceptable to a Muslim, ruled over by a Protestant Queen?

Pint of black gold it is then! Or rather 2 as I think Inspector likes that drink as well. I only partake of it when I am in the emerald isle as it tastes better!

As for other regular communicants (I leave our host out, as he can't drink with hands for ashes) , Carl Jacobs has Chianti, Avi Barzel some fine malt Scotch like Ardbeg 1965 and for me a glass of Galilean wine... Not sure if Explorer drinks, David B would have a Welsh bitter and Danjo, I dunno. Don't want to stereotype with suggest some form of outrageous cocktail... (:

All the things you mention are true, and I don't question them, though I wouldn't put them quite the way you have!!

The fact is that although you are correct in saying there is a fundamental absurdity in those of a Muslim faith swearing allegiance to a constitutionally Protestant monarch the waters were muddied here by no less than Prince Charles via various confusions due to Mountbastten's influence. Which confuses lots of people.

Furthermore I have come to see that there is definitely a network of invidious sexual morality which has great purchase on Parliament. There are many names involved. How interesting is it that there ia a Rochdale connection between Cyril Smith and Flowers for example, & that Flowers was in charge of children's services for the council when Satanic abuse accusations came up re children's homes? We will someday get to the bottom of it but it is not surprising if many people just don't know what is happening in the corridors of power nor exactly how best to right things.

'those elected to govern us have, either through ignorance or carelessness or malicious intent, acted unconstitutionally, turning their backs on the safeguards for the citizens against despots, Royal or Common, which our written constitution provides.'

Yeah, well, that's what happens when the liberals castrated the powers of the House of Lords in 1911 and Bliar chucked the real Lords out in favour of a crony appointed system, by political parties, rather than those of hereditary linage.

His Grace. These ordinary, everyday moderate Muslims want sharia law in their country; not secular democracy and human rights.

The Inspector has suggested in the past there is no word for ‘moderate’ in Islam. There is either Islam or there is no Islam. Not much of a choice, what !

One suspects memsahib knows this too, and would rather keep it under her head scarf…

What has stumped development in the non European races that practice Islam is the very same that WILL see Sharia established in their colonies in Europe, whether at their request, or after jihad. It’s our choice, at least they’ve given us that. And yes, that is the correct word used – ‘colonies’ – for we are being colonized just as effectively as Europeans once colonized the rest of the world…

Muslim do what muslim has written on the side of his tin. There is no blame to these people. They will take as much as they can get away with, or what we allow them. ‘Tis the way of all men in the world. Having said that, much rather they were doing it back in one of their ‘stans…

As for the discussion between yourself and John Wrake and the theory that it is all fault (whatever that 'fault' is) of the 'white PC Brigade', then it is also the fault of the White voter for voting for the same politicians in the first place...

but isn't there a glint of light here- an opportunity to 'evangelise the heathen' here, rather than spending money sending missionary types to Northern Matabele land ?

On the constitutional point I fear that few in this country have any understanding of it. This is mainly as a result of, until now, its success, as a quiet background presence, supporting most things decent and desirable and slowly evolving with the nation.

But now it has been trampled upon, starting of course with Heath, and that initial deception and violation of the constitution, has been added to by every PM that further sold out the country since, which includes Thatcher, even if she was coerced.

Either we get out from the wretched EU, with its distorting, justice denying, common sense frustrating laws, cleanly, by a referendum, or else I fear that future generations are going to have a very sorry hard time of it, with distinct and mounting loss of freedom and therefore prosperity and happiness. Such an untenable situation would be very unstable of course, as a habit and deep culture, of freedom, going back a very long way, would not go away.

It's the nationalism causes war thing. Create peace by destroying nationalism. Destroy nationalism by destroying the nation. Deliberate immigration for social reasons, not economic. Andrew Neather: "Rub the Right's noses in diversity." So successful that the politicians now have rather more diversity than they know what to do with. And lots more to come.

Evangelism is a good point, but for the Islamic penalty for apostasy. Besides, Christianity doesn't suggest the whole world will turn Christian. It might work the other way. Towards the end there will be a great falling away. (I'm not arguing this IS the end.)

Anyway. the way things are here, we need the Matabele to evangelise us.

On the serious note of the thesis of nationalism and trying to destroy it, the tragic irony is that immigration with an equally 'strong willed universal religion' will NOT destroy nationalism, but promote and enforce it (a clash on so many fronts, women, gays, drinking booze are the obvious ones). What will be the tragedy? Well, look at the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s....

A look at the history of the last 1400 years and the sites and particiipants of the main battles around Easter Europre and the Mediterranean basin will establish the pacifist nature of Islam - or not. For most of that time, Christian Europe was on the back foot - although without the government -sponsored, present influx of millions whose faith demands conquest until we all submit.

Professor Jansen, an eminent Arabist , was not allowed to testify at the trial of Geert Wilders. The judge who insisted on the prosecution actually tried to nobble him by engineering a private meetingThe panel of judges had t be dismissed.

Jansen's evidence was plain enough. There never could be any such thing as "moderate Islam" because the faith is scripturally defined for all time.There are, of course, moderate Muslims - that is people who ( for the present anyway) do not practice all its precepts. Of course, they may begin to do do when roused by evangelism

The replacement bench of judges did not allow the Professor to testify in person but his evidence was included in he record.

I've only had two personal experiences of contacts with Muslims, both of which lead me to believe that compliance with rather than commitment to Islam governs their faith.

I had a colleague, who when Ramadan fell over Christmas, complained that Ramadan should be moved when this occurred as it ruined his family's festive celebrations and was unfair on his children.

In the second encounter I hired a Muslim to undertake some building work at my house. For the three weeks he was there I gave him a bacon sandwich every morning. He also told me that every Friday evening all his fellow Muslims went to the mosque and then to the pub for a few pints. My guess is that, for these people, being a Muslim is a social grouping rather than a religious commitment and come shariah law, when all the pubs and pig farms are closed, these guys are going to have to find other ways of feeding and entertaining themselves. Compliance also, of course, offers some guarantees from being murdered by those more ardently following true Islam.

It does make one reflect on, when taking lands by the sword, Islam has gained true converts or simply a bunch of people who don't want to be murdered. It is much easier going along with those threatening you with death and destruction than standing against their rather antisocial behaviour, isn't it Mr Cameron?

Have recently discovered one of the areas not usually mentioned concerning sharia law. Basically in the hadith their prophet inveighed mightily against dogs. Apparently if a dog crosses in front of a Muslim or a group of Muslims while at prayer the prayer is invalidated and doesn't get through!!

But it gets worse. The keeping of dogs was prohibited, but Mohammed as a concession to outcry then allowed dogs in the field or guard dogs, but the prohibition on dogs indoor or being kept as pets remained. Black dogs come in for a particularly rough time, as their prophet decided that they were inhabited by Satan and every last one should be killed.

So should sharia law ever be enacted in parts of Britain large amounts of black dogs would be murdered in those areas due to some superstitious and dangerous nonsense. I think you would very soon find massive civil unrest if beloved family pets were targeted.

A sensible government sees these possibilities from afar and moves to avert them. I think this has just been ignored and they have pretended many issues that exist aren't really there at all, which comes under the heading of incompetence.

So let's get this straight. According to Baroness Warsi, Islam is a peaceful religion, with a few radical troublemakers who give the rest a bad name. But the video shows these male followers of said religion of peace & equality for all, agree with stoning to death for adulterers, the strict separation of men & women & without delving too much further that women are a sub species, who are viewed as a man's possession. They should not be educated as their role is to cook bear children & submit to their male 'owners'.We had the recent case of a young girl, who was shot in the head on the school bus for daring to suggest that Muslim girls have a right to be educated & follow a career. But surely Baroness Warsi is a woman. Not only that, but a career politician in a top post. The question must be asked, Who is right?.Surely the good Baroness should be at home, looking after the kids & cooking her hubby's tea if the lads on the video are right.Or has there been some special Islamic indulgence granted in this case?.Does anyone smell a rat?.

I think we all know in our hearts that Islam is a shameful creation of Man that is beneath the dignity of our species. To offer any respect to such a wicked philosophy is to slap human goodness and drag human decency through the mud.

Islam is a religion very much of 'this World' and uses methods very much of this present 'World system' to enforce Islam and to ensure that those who oppose Islam 'submit' to its rule.Islam is as much a political as a religious organisation.Islam reflects very much the attitudes and the principles of its founder Mohammed.So is Islam peaceful..yes to those who submit to it without reservation.Is islam violent..yes to those who oppose it.Two sides of the same 'coin'.You cannot have one 'side' without the other. ...............On the other hand Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."(John 18:36)

"PS- we have an 'UNWRITTEN' constitution, based upon history, tradition, precedent, common law, the rule of law and acts of Parliament. Even I know that."

there are two untruths which are constantly repeated - on government websites, in the media and in common report.

The first is that our Constitution is unwritten. It conveys the idea that the Constitution is a mish-mash of old thoughts, is constantly evolving and ordinary people will find it difficult to be aware of the current state of something in a state of flux. NOT SO.

Though it has not been codified into one document, the written components are there for all to read. They include the Coronation Ceremony devised by Dunstan, which includes the oath to the people made by the new monarch, the Council of Westminster in 1102 which outlawed slavery in England, Magna Carta, which bound the Monarch to obey Common Law and which gave us Trial by Jury and Habeas Corpus. The Council of Westminster in 1265 set up Parliament. In 1689, a Constitutional Convention produced the Declaration of Rights, agreed for all time.

The second untruth, propagated by the current government, is that Parliament can change the terms of the Constitution, since it is not bound by the decisions of previous Parliaments. NOT SO.

Our Constitution was not given us by any Parliament, even though some have later endorsed the terms. Some parts predate the existence of Parliament itself. No government has the power or right to change the Constitution, which is superior to Statute Law.

The Constitution is our safeguard against despotic government, whether by kings and queens, prime ministers or political parties, religions or ideologies.

Don't just believe what I write here. read the documents for yourself.

I think that this song by Hamish Imlach says it all about religious bigotry. Although it deals ostensibly with the catholic/protestant divisions in Glasgow, its application is universal.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8d2HWftSQY

Following on from what The Explorer said at 25/11/13 10:56, it should be pointed out that hit his first point, we must realise that there was a process of writing regarding how Muslims should treat Jews and Christians.First they were supposed to treat them as fellow brothers and followers of the same God and teach them where they had erred. Then they were to distance themselves from them. Then, finally, Muhammed said that they were to kill them. This was in response to the offer to convert being rebuffed, when it was assumed that they would be only too willing to come to see the truth of what Islam was teaching.If Muslims, like Warsi, want to be taken seriously with their claims that Islam is a peaceful religion/faith then they have to directly answer these issues before anything else. otherwise we are left with a lot of "pissing in the wind" and no one wanting to clean up the mess!

"Historically, "No Act of Parliament can be unconstitutional, for the law of the land knows not the word or the idea."

Since the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law. It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament."

Before further attempting to have a rational debate with Mr Wrake, can I suggest you spend a few minutes googling (other search engines are available) the lunacy known as "Freemen on the Land"?

Or, you may like to look at some rather aged research I undertook when I first encountered them.

Mr Wrake smells strongly like he might prefer to be referred to as "John of the family Wrake". Even if he isn't his arguments about the invariability of some ancient laws are, as you might have put it if you were less polite, b0ll0cks.

I suggest you look for your information in the documents I mentioned, rather than an unsubstantiated website.

Sovereignty belongs to the people and is embodied in the monarch who has promised to rule in accordance with Common Law. It is loaned to Her ministers on a temporary basis only and they can be dismissed at a General Election for misbehaviour.

Parliament has no authority to cede sovereignty to any foreign power, an action specifically banned by the Bill of Rights.

Surreptitious Evil.

Your alias is well chosen.

You have taken the usual course employed by those who wish to hide the truth, namely, a personal attack, rather than refuting the argument.

Perhaps you are in favour of denying the rights of ordinary people to the safeguards granted by Magna Carta, that ancient law, through trial by jury and Habeas Corpus.

I am rational and I refute any suggestion that I smell strongly!

John Wrake

Our form of government is a Constitutional Monarchy, not a Parliamentary Democracy.

1.Calling the British Constitution unwritten is shorthand for being ‘uncodified’

2.Coronation Oath- this is actually governed by the Coronation Oath Act of 1688, in which the Monarch says words to the following effect :"Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same" Note the bit about Statutes of Parliament there, in addition to 'laws and customs'?

3.The council of Westminster was actually a Synod of the Church and therefore pertains to spiritiual and not temporal law ; it did not, therefore, ‘outlaw’ slavery in England ;in any case what was feudalism if not a different form of slavery and why then did Parliaments have to pass laws 800 years later abolishing slavery and the slave trade, one assumes you’ve never heard of Wilberforce?

4.Magna Carta- which one? There were several. The first in 1215 was in effect for 3 months only. The one with full force of law, that of 1297, was agreed to by Edward I because he required money. Also, whilst there is huge romantic symbolism in the document, stemming from the later English Civil War and the American War of independence , the context of the 13th century meant that whatever ‘rights’ and ‘liberties’ were granted by the Monarchy, pertained to the elite group of aristocrats- Barons or the freemen - at the top of the Feudal hierarchy. And additional point is that only 3 clauses of the 1297 Magna Carta are actually in force in British law.

5.The constitutional convention which you refer to was called that because it was a Parliament which had not been summoned by the Monarchy, hence technically ‘illegal’ under the British constitution -by your view , at least,because you’ve said a Parliament CANNOT change said constitution, but, in 1688 that is EXACTLY what a Parliament did by asking William of Orange and his wife to become joint Monarchs. After the couple had accepted a new Parliament was formally formed and passed the bill of rights.

I was taught at school and from a young age, we are a Parliamentary Democracy. Parliament consists of the Monarchy, The House of Commons and the House of Lords.

The 'Constitutional' bit of the Monarchy refer to the powers of the Monarch, which are 'constitutional' in so much as the Monarch cannot appoint a government without the approval of the House of Commons, nor can the Monarch govern without a Parliament, in contrast to an absolute Monarch, such as the ancien Regime of the Kingdom of France before 1789.

It is true that only 1/3rd of the Parliament is elected by democracy or a vote and it is true that 100 years ago barely a third of men (not even women) could vote, but then this system worked well and was 'democratic', in the same way that a gentleman's club is democratic-albeit elite- among its members.

Again perhaps the various acts of 1832, 1867, 1885, 1918, 1928, which specified who could vote and on what criteria are a sign of how the British constitution changes over time...

"Historically, "No Act of Parliament can be unconstitutional, for the law of the land knows not the word or the idea."

I believe you've got it right, Hannah. Just as during the Second World War Parliament voted to postpone any general election until after the war was over, overruling whatever legislation of a consitutional character then governed the frequency of elections, so also at any time, before or since, Parliament was free, if it wanted to, to transform the UK into the fifty-first state of the United States or, for that matter, into the sixteenth republic of the USSR.

It didn't do either of those things, but only because it chose not to.

I think that this is worthy of "Tristram Shandy", a digression on a digression, and has meandered particularly far off course!!

I also think that the strange wikipedia entry regarding "freemen on the land" bore almost no relation to how John Wrake was describing his own views, which I don't wholly agree with, but which are really not far off mainstream!

I'm glad to hear that you respect what you have been taught. I cannot speculate on a lady's age, but would point out that not all teaching is sacrosanct and I suspect that those who taught you were following the views which became the norm after the Communist Revolution frightened the Western world into some sort of accommodation.

It was the liberal Government which, in 1911, forced through the Parliament Act, removing the right of the House of Lords to reject government finance bills and removed the effectiveness of the Royal Prerogative, by claiming that Royal Assent is automatic which began the rot.

Subsequent administrations have found it convenient to maintain these actions. Indeed, the current Prime Minister claims it is parliamentary prerogative to have the final say on legislation, while the state of the emasculated House of Lords is plain to all.

Changes to the franchise have no effect on the terms of the Constitution. They may enable greater numbers to vote for their representatives, but they confer no powers beyond what the Constitution allows. Voting for people who are dishonest or careless or bent on destroying the nation is the responsibility of voters.

I have referred to Parliament claiming that it has the right to cede sovereignty to a foreign power as an indication of the ignorance of and contempt for the Constitution which continues to be displayed by our so-called leaders.

This man finds the video chilling, not just for the obvious, but because it made a seemingly sane man go about and kill the young of the politicians who brought these types in. It’s always the unexpected which breaks through your senses defences and leaves a lasting mark...

Oh dear oh dear, I have just read through the last few threads, and fear that many dear and much loved communicants are getting rather agitated. I invite all of you to the Palace for a slap up high tea and good conversation. Here are my thoughts, though I dare say I shall be shot down: yes, we do have a constitution and no, it is not codified and therefore reliant on precedent; Common Law trumps statute law every time, though this is not really understood by most people, least of all by Parliamentarians, who are a sly and devious bunch; Parliament is a strange concept of 'Crown in Parliament', which means that the authority of Parliament is dependent on the Crown. What has been presented as modernisation, like the House of Lords Reform, has strengthened the power of the Prime Minister (which is in effect the Royal Prerogative) at the expense of democracy. On reflection, better to have left things as they were - Oh dear, have I upset some republicans? Good. Tea and crumpets for all our chums in the drawing room...Mr. Slope will be there of course, dishing out the Garibaldis and no doubt voicing the Republican side of things...just ignore him. Happy Jack can favour us with some musical entertainment, the Inspector General can regale us with some of his stories and Hannah can tell us what a bunch of old fossils we are.

That might be what you believe, but it was not true in the 19th century and is not true today. Sorry to burst your bubble, but statue law ALWAYS overrides common law... a recent example is when Ian Duncan Smith and his department lost a court case over sending an educated gradate to 'Poundland' and decided to 'overrule' the decision by passing an Act of Parliament within 24 hours...

Sure, to this 27 year old, if attending a Private School and 3 of the best global universities is 'communist education'... then get me to the nearest conspiracy theory weblog!

I am fully well aware of the issues of the 1911 Parliament Act,my family were never happy with it, begin squarely in the paternalist conservative one nation tradition of Disraeli.

You've missed a trick in respect of the size and scope of the electorate and its impact upon Britain; the House of Commons is responsible to the same electorate.

If the composition of the electorate alters the House of Commons will therefore (has been/will be) responsive to that changing electorate, in order to, well get elected.

This is quite clear from British history... and an example is the extension of the franchise in Ireland which allowed Irish 'home rulers' to dominate Irish representation in the House of Commons for 40 years and with it much impact upon the rest of the UK...

OR another example is when the electorate was restricted the House of Commons was Liberal/Whig, but with more people getting the vote, more Conservative administrations, occasional labour governments and no 'liberal' governments after 1916...

Hello Mrs Proudie, Happy Jack talks with you and enjoys your little tales about that bad Mr Slope, the silly Bishop and all the goings on at Barchester.

Happy Jack knows nothing about Parliamentary law and the constitution and is wondering what it has to do with whether Islam is a dangerous religion. Jack thinks it is for others and also for those in it who know no better.

Happy Jack says we need to organise a special evangelical mission to the Muslim area in Barchester. The Inspector can lead the march with a big banner, followed by Len and Mr Slope. Next the Bishop and Blowers to do all the talking, and us at the rear offering out hobnobs and tea with Jack singing. This is England and we should be able to spread the faith.

Explorer. I can recommend Bruce Bawer's 'Debating Islam'. That said, it must be stressed he has an axe to grind.he moved to Norway to marry his partner: and now feels under threat.

Glad you put in the codicil, that man. One has learnt to ignore the whines of gay men under pressure. Rather too mawkish – sure you’ll agree...

Anyway, a fellow can no more advocate the writings of a gay man, than to advise people to drink contaminated drinking water. You see, the Gay Philosophy will always shine proudly forth, as these fellows must have it....

Dear dear Hannah, I was only teasing, but goodness you seem to have come back with a bit of a swipe. Oh well, perhaps you are teasing too - I hope so. I have to take issue with you however, in that statute does not override Common Law: Common Law predates statute, hence the distinction between lawful (relating to Common Law) and legal (relating to statute). Parliament, which has always sought ways and means to extend its own authority and to destroy the balance between Crown, Lords and Commons, claims statute has precedence, but it does not. The sniff sniff was but a jest my dear, and who said I was old? Tut tut...

He mentions his situation in his biographical details, and refers to it from time to time: and from this I infer the reason for his sense of urgency.

But the overwhelming theme is culture clash: there is much about attitudes to women, and about anti-Semitism. Most of all, there is the problem of Western denial. (Your very valid point @ 18:27 about Brevik.)

Bawer's famous book (which I haven't read) is 'While Europe Slept'. The title is a pretty good indication,though, of his priorities.

One had to question the gay intent, if any. Anyway, it has has been considered by the Inspector’s Board of Control. It has been accredited a ‘16’ certificate, as it is about Islam, and might cause younger readers to involuntarily fill their pants...

"In 1689, a Constitutional Convention produced the Declaration of Rights, agreed for all time."

I am afraid that I am reminded of the words of King Charles I:

"I would know by what authority, I mean lawful"

I'm afraid that I think that Hannah has the measure of your theories in her post of 16:10

"you’ve said a Parliament CANNOT change said constitution, but, in 1688 that is EXACTLY what a Parliament did by asking William of Orange and his wife to become joint Monarchs"

Except she was wrong to use the word "parliament" -- a parliament is called and is invested with power by a reigning monarch. James II did not call or invest this "parliament".

If the convention of 1689 was bound by constitutional law, then the Stuart heir still reigns and rules.

If, in 1689:

" a Constitutional Convention produced the Declaration of Rights, agreed for all time."

then the authority to declare a declaration valid for all time rested in this body. Whence came that authority? And why wouldn't a successor body equally possess it?

Your post is a legal nonsense designed to uphold a set of constitutional rights you should selectively like to uphold.

If there is a permanent constitution, if there is an authority that parliament cannot wield, then it is certain that the acts of the convention were manifestly illegal and treasonable, that the King across the Water reigns, and that there can be no revolution in England. The laws of the past three hundred years are not worth the paper they are recorded upon.

If the convention had the power to unilaterally alter the constitution, then it claimed exactly the right you bemoan; that to "cede sovereignty to a foreign power" (William of Orange)and it is quite unclear why its successor assemblies should not equally partake of this authority.

You are caught on the horns of a dilemma, because you are being willfully inconsistent. There is no legal nor moral reason to regard the convention of 1689 as any kind of special body. In fact, there are both good legal and good moral reasons to deplore and to denounce that body for traitors and oathbreakers. You only wish to uphold that body because it said things that you wished to hear, and that is simply not good enough.

You might then say that the convention was illegal according to the constitution, but, in a Burkean way, tradition and practice have served to hallow and legitimise it.

That is a fine and sensible position. But if that is your position, then there is no obvious reason why the arrangement of the sovereignty of parliament, or of the future sovereignty of the EU for that matter, could not equally be so hallowed and so legitimised by time and custom.

What I am saying is that you have three options:

1)The Constitution trumps mere parliaments and assemblies, and we have been ruled by usurpers, witting or unwitting, since the time of the glorious revolution

2)the convention trumped the constitution, and its successor bodies in turn trump it -- parliament can declare whatever laws it wills to

3) Time and practice is sufficient to bless a government or constitution with legitimacy it may not at its origin have possessed. This passage of practice made the convention constitutional settlement proper, and has made parliamentary supremacy proper, and may one day make the rule of the EU proper.

To turn from this reasoning, and to assert the convention of 1689 to have possessed a power unique in British history to bind its heirs and successors, is to turn from legal discourse and even from cool reason, and to assert a position merely on the basis that it is what you wish the case to be.

Would it be fair to say that the claim by Warsi that terrorists aren't Muslims could be fairly compared to a claim that the Westboro Baptist Church aren't Christians, but with the difference that there are far more terrorists claiming to be Muslims than there are members of the WBC, and far more support for militant Islam from Muslims in general than there is for the WBC from Christians in general?

Or would it be more fair to compare her claims that the terrorists aren't Muslims with the often seen claims from some Catholics that no-one who isn't a Catholic is a True Christian, and often seen claims from fundie Protestants that Catholics aren't Christian?

I'd have thought, myself, that the former is the better analogy, but I also think that Catholics, Protestants and the WBC are all Christians.

My rule of thumb is that if people call themselves Christian (or Muslim) then they are, though I suppose that at the boundaries there is room for debate. Calling a Mormon a Christian seems to me a bit iffy, for instance.

However, I have to take issue with your statement that the Constitutional Convention of 1689 was a Parliament. It was not. It was what it is called, a gathering of monarch, lords and commoners, convened by that monarch to confirm the people's choice of him to replace James, since the latter had been intent on returning the country to the Roman Catholic faith against the people's wishes.

It reasserted the sovereignty of the people, the supremacy of Common Law over Statute Law and the upholding of the Protestant Faith by the Monarch as Supreme Head on earth of the Church of England.

Your mention of Charles I is a reminder to us that it is lawful for the people to change a monarch who acts against the coronation oath, for sovereignty rests with them.

The authority to declare that the findings were for all time stem from that sovereignty and there has been no gathering of the same nature to rescind that declaration.

English people are well aware that it is not only monarchs who are capable of breaking their oaths, for Parliaments provide frequent examples. The fact that a Parliament subsequently codified the outcome, or subsequently changed its mind invalidates nothing. We have a classic example in the present day, when a Prime Minister has persuaded a Parliament to change the meaning of the word 'marriage'. Marriage hasn't changed, and we all know it.

To call William of Orange 'foreign' is disingenuous. His English connection through his wife, Mary, with whom He ruled jointly, is well known.

As for your three options, they do not hold water.1) We have been ruled by usurpers from time to time since before 1689 and the practice continues.2) There has been no successor gathering of like nature.3) It is of the nature of treason to claim that its actions are unexceptional. It is why it sometimes succeeds.

The cool reason you claim could be described otherwise - as cool cheek.

'Happy Jack knows nothing about Parliamentary law and the constitution and is wondering what it has to do with whether Islam is a dangerous religion'.

I didn't see your question before. My own answer to that is to note that this is not about the rituals, festivals, beliefs of a particular religion, but-as his Grace quotes Lord Pearson- Islam is a religion which fuses temporal and spiritual matters into 'Islamic Law'.In fact one could go further and suggest that Islam provides the world with both it's constitution and its law rolled into one, which in their view should be applicable not just to Muslims, but also non-Muslims.

I believe it was Rowan Williams who suggested that Islamic law be introduced into the UK, which would have an impact upon us all (not least in creating a 'shadow' legal system).

So if you wish to defend the English constitutional and legal system and not have Islamic law being imposed here, for you only need to read about the legal systems where Islamic law is implemented to see from my point of view the consequences would be extremely negative (I don't want to be stoned to death, thanks), then you need to have some form of understanding of what our constitution is, where it came from and what it does, as well as what English law is.

We are all in agreement that there are concepts such as common and statute law, but where we are disagreeing is who or what is the ultimate arbiter of law. I'm suggesting that Parliament is the final source of law via it's ability to pass statue law [acts of Parliaments, such as gay marriage], whereas John Wrake and Mrs Proudie are arguing that it is common law which is the ultimate arbiter [common law being the decisions of courts over the centuries in legal cases -both civil and criminal -in what becomes known as 'precedent', so similar circumstances provide for the same judgement, unless the court decides otherwise or if there hasn't been a similar legal case before and a new precedent is created].

But regardless, I'd rather have both of these concepts than Islamic courts with any legal teeth.

'Marriage hasn't changed'. That could be a way of deciding who is right on this issue. If 'common law' is the ultimate arbiter of the English constitution, then surely all someone has to do is to challenge the act which introduced gay marriage in a court of law?

As for Charles I, isn't it the case you can only say that because he lost? I think the Earl of Manchester said :

"If we beat the King ninety and nine times yet he is king still, and so will his posterity be after him; but if the King beat us once, we shall be all hanged, and our posterity be made slaves"

William of Orange, was Dutch on his father's side and was born in The Netherlands. I believe that his mother was the eldest daughter of Charles I, so that would make him half Scottish then? William III too over as full Monarch when Mary died and I believe his successors turned out to be German- as they were the only Protestants around; the persons of the English Monarchy has always be 'foreign' to some degree.

As for 1688 reasserting 'common law' over Parliamentary law, then where was the court case which gave William the throne? And why if Common law reasserted itself, was it deemed necessary to put 'the bill of rights' onto the statute book? Perhaps it was more that the House of Lords and House of Commons were reasserting themselves against the powers of the Monarchy?

'To turn from this reasoning, and to assert the convention of 1689 to have possessed a power unique in British history to bind its heirs and successors, is to turn from legal discourse and even from cool reason, and to assert a position merely on the basis that it is what you wish the case to be.'

That is fair enough. I wonder if John Wrake has read the contents of the 'The Succession to the Crown Act 2013', which repeals the exclusion on the Monarch being a Roman Catholic and the end to 'Male-preference cognatic primogeniture'.

You are being hypocritical here because there is Jewish law and Jews have their own law courts and no-one worries about them - or do you not consider them to be valid?

What is wrong with allowing Muslims to have Sharia Courts as well? I believe that was the argument put forward by Archbishop Rowan, that Muslims shouldn't have to face "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

Seems fair to me. We are an interfaith and diverse society nowadays. The law must reflect these changes.

Wesley believed the faith of Catholics and Protestants to contain all that is necessary for salvation. Modern Jews he was content to leave in the hands of the Master. For the rest, there were those among the nations who could come to full salvation.

C S Lewis articulated a similar sort of position in 'The Last Battle'.

On a personal note, last weeek I attended the memorial service for Lewis in Westminster Abbey. Near me was a Muslim in Muslim attire. His manner in the Abbey was completely respectful. I imagine that his motive for being there was the same as mine: to honour Lewis' service to God.

Whatever my views of the Koran, nothing will convince me that among the Muslims there are not sincere seekers after truth.

PS: To my fellow believers, this is not an attempt on my part to foment a religious dispute. Quite the opposite. (And note it is NOT an argument for Universalism, or the equal validity of all faiths.)

This is an attempt to find the common ground for all those who - whatever their starting point - long to know God.

Ralph Smith @ 13.03, if Jewish law was totally opposed to the law of the land, your point would be valid. But as Avi Bartels and other Jewish commentators frequently point out, it is an article of Jewish practice not to but Jewish law in a position where it is antipathetic to the law of the land. The problem with sharia is that so much of it is in direct contravention to the Common Law and much of English statute law. The decision of the Cameron government to issue Gilts in a sharia compliant form, requiring a radically different structure to these debt offerings to those of customary Western practice may illustrate the point. Cameron's aim of course is to ensure that the London market emerges as the dominant commercial force in the field of sharia compliant finance.

An unintended consequence of this commercial imperative is that Cameron is creating a precedent that gives one aspect of sharia law standing within the UK. It will not be long before the British Ummah demand full compliance with sharia in all aspects.

Yes Jews do have a system of law called Halakha, which is concerned about how Jews should act on a day to day basis, our philosophy, our religious practices, our food, our festivals. One of the guiding principals of the Jewish faith is that 'the law of the land is the law of the land'. Therefore Jews must submit to the law of the land in which they are in. If the law of the land goes against Jewish law or practice, then, if we cannot find an agreeable solution, we leave said land.

In respect of Britain, I don't think there is a problem for Jews and there certainly, as Bluedog suggested, little clash between English law and Jewish law (itself based around precedent or 'common law'). Indeed there have been numerous important legal officers who have been Jewish, such as Lord Woolf (former Chief Justice of England and Wales), Brian Leveson (current President of the Queen's Bench Division) and Lord Neuberger (current President of the Supreme Court) .

In respect of the Beth Dins, as they are called, they are valid under British law because they are considered to be 'third party' arbitrators. They deal with civil matters only (divorce, agreeing that food is Kosher, Kosher certification, civil disputes, overseeing conversions to our faith etc) and is ONLY open to Jews.

Furthermore, they are voluntarily and decision cannot be forced if one party does not agree. They do not deal with criminal cases- no Jewish religious court can deal with criminal cases- as we don't have a Sanhedrin or a Temple still standing, as said Temple is ruins with a Mosque built on it. In respect of divorce, Jews also need to obtain a 'civil' divorce from the state.

There is, I think a difference between that arrangement and granting further legal powers to a faith (Sharia courts do except in the UK on the same basis as Beth Dins, except non-Muslims can use them), which as I've said above, wants to apply their religious laws to everyone, both in civil and criminal matters. As I said, I wouldn't want to be in a country in which gays were being stoned to death or to ban people from drinking,selling alcohol or stoning for adultery.

If you dismiss that as 'Islamophobic', then go and review how Islamic law is operated in,say,Iran or Saudi Arabia or even the gulf states, where you can be gaoled for holding hands if you are not married. Or 'liberated' Afghanistan which wishes to reintroduce stoning.

The problem with deciding what is and what is not genuinely Islamic is more or less impossible to solve.

I'd recommend that readers here go and look at online English translations of the Koran to see some of the difficulty. Some translations interpret the passages about struggle, war, jihad, unbelievers, etc. in philosophical and spiritual ways. Unbelievers are interpreted not as adherents of other religions per se, but liars, deceivers, adulterers, thieves, greedy, selfish, evil people etc. regardless of faith. They are to be defeated in argument, by prayer and by good examples.

In other translations, such as the one officially approved by the Saudi government, infidels are specifically defined as Christians, Jews and Pagans, to be slaughtered and subjugated like the filthy swine they are. It is nothing less than a frantic incitement to religious genocide.

I'm no Arabic scholar, so I have no idea which are more authentic, but if the text of the Koran can legitimately be interpreted in so many different ways, no one has a hope of defining who is a "proper " Muslim and who is not. It will always be a subjective decision.

For many Muslims, especially those from more spiritual and mystical traditions like Sufism, lunatics like Al Qaeda are not "proper" Muslims, just as many Christians don't view neo-Nazi groups like Aryan Nations as "proper" Christians. The problem is that there is no way to defintively define a Muslim beyond the most basic criteria like the Five Pillars.

A postscript, if I may, on certain similarities and differences between Jewish and Moslem practice where religious law is concerned.

As anybody who has ever been to Jerusalem will have noticed, Orthodox Judaism requires its adherents, both male and female, to follow a strict dress code at all times, whenever they are in public. Many communicants, I believe, will recall the 2002 fire at a girls’ school in Mecca, where the girls were prevented from escaping and driven back inside the burning building because “they were not properly dressed”. (An excerpt from the Wikipédia article follows.) Could something like this have happened in Jerusalem, even in the Mea Shearim district? I don’t think so.

In the Mecca fire, fifteen girls were burnt to death and a number of others seriously injured:

According to at least two reports, members of the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (CPVPV), also known as Mutaween, would not allow the girls to escape or to be saved from the fire because they were "not properly covered", and the mutaween did not want physical contact to take place between the girls and the civil defense forces for fear of sexual enticement, and variously that the girls were locked in by the police, or forced back into the building.[2][6] Civil Defense stated that the fire had extinguished itself before they arrived on the scene. CPVPV officers did appear to object to Civil Defense workers going into the building - Human Rights Watch quoted a Civil Defense officer as saying,"Whenever the girls got out through the main gate, these people forced them to return via another. Instead of extending a helping hand for the rescue work, they were using their hands to beat us."

Goodness! Well, having carefully read the postings above, and then checking up on my facts with regard to Common Law and Statute Law, I do believe...gulp...that I was wrong! One was taught the supremacy of Common Law at school, but I cannot fault Hannah's logical argument, even if my heart still veers towards Mr. Wake's. A glass of sherry is called for, and a tub of Bath Olivers.

I meant to add that Bart Ehrman (or however you spell it) would make the same criticism of the Bible, and the deconstructionist would say the same about both sacred books and every other text (except, of course, his/her own).

Bart E. is refuted easily enough by Craig Evans, and the Deconstructionists refute themselves: if they're right, why should we believe them?

So going back to your original point, I'm sure you're right: by any standard, a particularly problematic issue of definition.

All very well on the (very) surface of your argument. And I can see that you think we can all co-exist under different laws. But the point is precisely that the laws conflict.

And we are faced with the rights of women children and animals being threatened. Men other than thieves escape remarkably lightly which is why some men haven't really focussed. No one is going to try and put a sack over your head or look at you as if you were really immoral for wearing a pair of shorts are they? Or try to impede your walking with all those clothes? Or say that you can be raped not only with impunity unless there are four female witnesses to validate it but also be charged with adultery and severely punished for daring to walk out on your own. No one is going to deny you education or marry you off to a leering lustful rich elderly woman in your teens whom you find vile and who can severely curtail your freedom, and beat you if you do not please her in every detail. Nor would you be considered to be half a witness, or have half a share of a female in inheritance. But you would happily wish the equivalent on your neighbour who is a female in a Muslim household? How so?

And that is before we get to the rights of dogs in a Muslim area, which are totally at variance with our laws and the work of the RSPCA. It is forbidden by sharia to keep dogs indoor or as pets. It takes away a mountain of blessings each day to keep a pet dog and no angel can walk within a house in which there are dogs. Black dogs are to be killed for they are Satanic according to Mohammed. Furthermore earnings from selling a dog are on a par with earnings from prostitution under strict sharia law.

And you think we can live alongside these barbaric lunacies?

And don't go telling me that Islam is a young faith and they are therefore at the same stage as the Middle Ages. I have heard it before and am really unimpressed as the Middle Ages, despite all the negatives was a whole heap better than that.

Dear Mrs Proudie, I have refrained until now from commenting on the common law v. statute law debate simply because I have always been a bit hazy about the precise meaning of the terms. Some people seem to use the expression “common law” as a synonym for jurisprudence or judge-made law, while others use it to mean something else -- in cases where a dispute arises on a matter that is not covered by any Act of Parliament, courts are (notionally) free to judge the case in accordance with the rules that people have traditionally accepted. I suppose there must have been cases where the rules that were traditionally accepted in Mrs Proudie’s Barsetshire would have been quite different from those that were traditionally accepted in Mr Happy Jack’s Durham. Nowadays, in any case, there can’t be much room left for any kind of dispute, however trivial, that Parliament has never got round to legislating about.

I suspect that perhaps your teachers may have been right in saying that common law, in the sense of jurisprudence, once such judge-made law has come into being, ought to take precedence over the letter of the law, but that statute law ought to prevail over common law in the other sense.

By the way, may I respectfully call your attention, Mrs P, to a comment I posted on the Reform Clause 1 thread, on 25 Nov. at 09:32.

A for instance. A while back, the headless corpse of a boy was fished out of the Thames. He had been offered as a human sacrifice. To us it was murder; to the cult it was an attempt to ensure a good harvest. You can't say, you can have your religion provided it doesn't clash with our laws; this particular faith can't do OTHER than clash with our laws if it's to be true to its beliefs.

Two solutions.

1. The Ottoman millet system. Community leaders liaise with the authorities: eg, who will be sacrificed, where and when.

2. You can live here, but you obey our laws. If our laws clash with your religion, either a) change your religion, or b) go where your religion is legal; or c) go to prison.

Through history, 2b, 2c (or death) has been the option for Christians. It might yet be so again.

That is very magnanimous of you, in this forum I appreciate it is very difficult to be either collegiate or good humoured in these discussions, but I think we've all just about managed that here. A victory in itself.

Anyways as it is now Hanukkah, I've got my gelt, ready to light the candles, say Hanerot Halalu and sing "Ma'oz Tzur".

The answer is "no" such an event wouldn't happen in Israel. And if it did such people would face the full force of the law.

In respect of the common law debate, I'd also add that Parliament is legislating more and more, especially in the past 40 to 50 years, in order to be seen to 'do something' as if legislation will solve every problem (how many crime laws did Blair enact?). Whereas in the past, Parliament legislated less and therefore the courts had more to decide (if that makes sense).

Explorer, Happy Jack asks if there is a 2d? Convert people and their leaders, or just their leaders, and then change the laws to make them conform to your religion. This is what Christians did and are still trying to do throughout the world. Jack agrees there cannot be different laws for different groups in one country.

Dear dear Uncle Brian, Goodness! I seem to have overlooked your comment which I reproduce below:"Dear Mrs Proudie, may I appeal to you to clear up certain grave suspicions that have been flying around. Is it true that, in addition to the published version of Barsetshire Traditional Airs Melodies & Folksongs, collected, arranged and scored for sackbut and serpent by the Rev. Septimus Harding, certain privileged members of the Cathedral Chapter have also been seen (and heard) chuckling over an underground edition with unbowdlerised lyrics?"

I fear it is true indeed. Mr. Slope has been struggling with his serpent for years, and I daresay his sackbut has seen considerable action too. Mr. Harding is an innocent of course, and a total stranger to the double entendre, whereas Mr. Slope spent his youth in Portsmouth...enough said.

One does prefer a B&B to a cheap hotel every time. Of course, as you are guests in someone’s home and treated accordingly, they will have rules. “Wipe you feet on the mat, no smoking in the bedroom, and no sodomy”. Nothing unreasonable there, do you not think ? After all, it is someone's home...

Male homosexual couples welcome, apparently, but will have to pay a higher rate. This is due to needing to replace bed linen which has to be burnt afterwards to stop the spread of HIV and gonorrhoea . Health and safety issue, you see...

Sorry didn't mean to make you jealous with the thought of me and Danjo appearing on a quiz show together. I think, though, both me and Danjo are already 'spoken for'. I guess you'll find the right person soon (I am quite a good matchmaker and for you I'd work pro bono!).

I was going to suggest a nice song that you and Happy Jack could sing called 'I Have a Little Dreidel', but dare I say you'd misunderstand, Happy Jack would ask what a Dreidel is and Mrs Proudie would have an attack of the vapors!

I do so agree with your comments on a previous topic, that it is irritating when people will drag gay issues in when they have no relevance to the topic under discussion. I agree that it seems a bit unhealthy and obsessive. Not to mention abusing His Grace's hospitality.

Danjo, Happy Jack has read that judgement and sees that the court looked on marriage and civil partnerships as a legal relationships for promoting stability. Jack also notes the court sees homosexuality as a state of being, just like heterosexuality, that should be allowed equal expression with a partner.

Happy Jack thinks these are just assumptions that contradict Christian beliefs and he does not see how a democratic and pluralistic society that accepts them and bases its law on them can be fair to Christians who do not agree.

Happy Jack asks is there no way Christians can run their businesses and stay true to their religious convictions without this being treated as discrimination? There are plenty of hotels that are not run on Christian lines. Why didn't these men go to one of these?

In some respects the question of whether or not the fundies follow Islam or not is irrelevant; what is germane to this discussion and from a 'realpolitik' viewpoint is to ask what are the political aims of Jihadist/Islamic Fundamentalists? Now this may seem obvious, but I recall watching a 'question time' show and one of the issues was something along the lines of 'should we negociate with Al-Queada in the same way we did with the IRA?'

Now the response to that by the politicians was to suggest that the IRA had 'political' objectives and you could therefore negociate with then, but Islamic fundamentalist don't, so you can't.

In actual fact the Islamic fundamentalists do have aims, in the same way the IRA's aim was to make the British abandon Ulster and united Ireland (albeit via terrorism). The problem is that until recently the political objectives of Islamic fundamentalists have been unacceptable to the western world.

These objectives are:

1. Removal of Western forces from the middle east and Islamic law throughout the region.2. The destruction of Israel and a Palestinian Islamic state.3. The long term goal of the world being converted (by force) to Islam.

These objectives are undertaken via terrorism, because even these lunatics know that in a conventional fight they'd have their arses kicked from here to Venus, so cowards that they are, have to attack and kill civilians, even if they have nothing to do with 'the war on terror'.

Now that we have been fighting several wars, it seems the politicians are having second thoughts,it is tragic that in 'liberated' Afghanistan that the 'pro-western' government there wants to re-introduce stoning as a punishment.

Then this week we have Barrack 'Neville Chamberlain' Obama declaring peace in our time Viz Iran, the fundamentalists may yet achieve 1 and 2 on that list;he certainly stabbed Israel in the back as well as other key allies (my Israeli relatives are, ahem,'fuming').

Except, the 'wild card' is that of the split between Sunni and Shia and that the fool Obama, whilst he thinks he can stick two fingers up to Israel, has also done the same to the Saudis, who've hinted they'll get nukes from Pakistan -and a crossing of an ostensible American/western ally- with his appeasement of Iran...

Lucy, I take your point to some extent but this thread has already got long in the tooth and drifted, the case has been the subject of articles in the past and this is a development on the day for those who have been following it, it is constructive to provide the judgement in the link which is not readily available in the media coverage, and there is a vague relevance to the current topic as both are religious divergences from the mainstream. You'll also note that I haven't engaged in discussion about it afterwards either, even writing "Anyway, as you were" at the end to signal it.

Hannah:"The problem is that until recently the political objectives of Islamic fundamentalists have been unacceptable to the western world."

In as much as Al Qaida is one type of Islamic fundamentalism, it has political goals but they seem to me to be indirect ones. My understanding is that the ideology has arisen in part from the writings of Sayyid Qutb and his attacks on the state and governance of Islamic countries. The indirect goal is presumably to bring about a 'pure' and widespread form of Islam, but the direct goal is presumably to draw Western attacks on Muslims and trigger a worldwide revolution by the Ummah. It has some sort of success in that a state of Muslim victimhood has developed, with Israel as a rallying point. Qutb tried to cause a revolution starting in corrupt Islamic countries, and we have seen shades of this in the Arab Spring stuff where the Muslim Brotherhood has tried to gain control afterwards in some places.

Jack:"Happy Jack thinks these are just assumptions that contradict Christian beliefs and he does not see how a democratic and pluralistic society that accepts them and bases its law on them can be fair to Christians who do not agree."

Well, the same basic issue exists with Islam too. How do we reconcile religious divergences like these? If the video in the article is the truth as far as the relationship between Muslins and Sharia is concerned then we have a problem. The Supreme Court will not be able to resolve this short of making some space for the more benign parts of Sharia and blocking the rest as incompatible with our current laws and precedents.

HJ: Sorry for tardy reply. We were out at a meal with friends last night, and got back around midnight. Yes, 2d was an omission on my part. Thank you for rectifying it.

Lucy: I think DanJ0 made a perfectly valid continuation; although I was actually thinking, as I said, of the sweep of history: particularly the Christians under Communism, the Catholics and the Confessing Church under Nazism, and speculating about the future, given biblical prophecy.

DanJ0: if Bruce Bawer is accurate, the video is fully representative of the Scandinavian situation. He says - writing before the Swedish riots - that Malmo has the biggest problems of the lot: the Jews are leaving, for they no longer feel safe.

Happy Jack said @ 22:50There are plenty of hotels that are not run on Christian lines. Why didn't these men go to one of these?Jack, they chose this B&B because they were targeting a known Guest House with Christian Values. They had no desire to stay there, merely to provoke a situation. A little like the gay journalist who went to a Christian counsellor claiming the desire for help to suppress his feelings for same sex attraction and then reported her to her medical counselling body.There are I understand Gay Bars and Hotels. I do not know what there reaction would be to heterosexuals going to their establishments but I'm sure they would not be made welcome. I also doubt that heterosexuals would be so aggressive in their persecution of Gay establishments.

Politicians should bear in mind when they think they're "negotiating" with Islamic extremists that whatever short-term concessions they seem prepared to make, the end-game of world domination is eschatological and will never change.

Danjo, Happy Jack does not agree that sharia law and Christian views about marriage and homosexuality are both "religious divergences from the mainstream." Christians do not believe in cutting off people's heads and hands or stoning them to death. And Christians do not kill people who preach another faith or who want to leave their religion and have very different views about women.

Happy Jack asks what right a judge has to say marriage is not about sexual relationships and that it is just a legal arrangement or to say homosexuality is something people just are?

Happy Jack understands the need for fairness but believes it is fair for Christians to be able to run their businesses according to their faith. And these legal opinions on marriage and homosexuality are not ones held by Christians, Jews or Muslims.

@ Happy Jack"Christians do not believe in cutting off people's heads and hands or stoning them to death".

Agreed.

Though I do find myself wavering when I read something as awful as the Ian Watkins trial, and start wondering about the death penalty in such extremes. Hopefully eleven months old babies don't recall, but it will probably be buried in the subconscious and lead to a deeply troubled child.

Odd that I might actually find myself in agreement with the sharia law people on such extreme cases as have for a long time been deeply against the death penalty.

I do think there is distinct room for bringing back the stocks, however, decently regulated, as it is such a swift sharp and uncostly way for the general populace to show their disgust and shock the perpetrator into reconsidering. their actions.

Jack: "Happy Jack does not agree that sharia law and Christian views about marriage and homosexuality are both "religious divergences from the mainstream." Christians do not believe in cutting off people's heads and hands or stoning them to death. And Christians do not kill people who preach another faith or who want to leave their religion and have very different views about women."

As you say, there are very different viewpoints associated with each religion but nevertheless the subject of each of the two topics are religious divergences from the mainstream. How are we to tell the Muslims in that room that they are wrong about their god and the associated claim for legitimacy of Sharia? No doubt most of them truly believe in Islam, as with Christians and their belief in Christianity. So, how are we to proceed in a pluralistic society like ours where there is no compelling evidence for either religion?

Danjo, Happy Jack says this is a Christian country based on the love of one's neighbour and the forgiveness of sin. It also allows freedom of thought and expression. It is very different to the cultures that have been formed by Islam. We also have the rule of law and a legal system to decide what is a crime and what the punishment should be. That's what we tell those Muslims in that room.

Happy Jack says a pluralistic society based on Christian values about women, children and how we treat each other should not permit separate Muslim laws that see the world differently. But it should allow Christians to offer services in a way that is okay with their faith if no one is harmed. Tell Jack what harm is done if Christian hotel owners do not want same sex couples sharing a bed because it is against their faith? Surely this is pluralism too? There are plenty of other hotels and its not as if there's a shortage in the market place.

Jack: "We also have the rule of law and a legal system to decide what is a crime and what the punishment should be."

Indeed, and its top court has ruled according to the law in the case to which I referred.

"Tell Jack what harm is done if Christian hotel owners do not want same sex couples sharing a bed because it is against their faith? Surely this is pluralism too? There are plenty of other hotels and its not as if there's a shortage in the market place."

The judgement describes the argument pretty well. Also, your statement equally applies to black people booking at hotels run by people who have a firmly held opinion about immigration, and to Christians or Muslims booking at hotels run by people of other religions who might not want idolatrous or disquieting religious observances taking place within their walls.

Danjo, Happy Jack says they are good points and he's not sure how to answer them all but will have a go.

Jack doesn't agree that racism is a religious belief and so it should not be protected. It is just wrong. As for booking into hotels and doing things unacceptable to their hosts, well Jack says the owner should have the right to say certain things cannot go on. Why not? That's pluralism, isn't it? There are Halal hotels run by Muslims. Have any same sex couples tried to book double rooms there?

And as Happy Jack said this judgement was based on two assumptions that Christians disagree. For a Christian marriage is not just a legal relationship for social stability and homosexuality is a sin and not a state of being.

I am interested in your views on whether you consider it OK for gay only b&b s to exist, and actually one notch further up, gay hotels.

I can see a case for laws insisting any hotel over a certain size should take anyone, but I would say if they can pack in no more than 50, or if designated a private hotel let them stipulate gay, straight, Muslim, Hindu, trainspotters or whatever as long as it is based upon belief and lifestyle and not colour or body shape (except if people are so fat they would break things right left and centre- an interesting notion!!) And as long as they are not the only hotel with no others within a 10 mile radius. I would not only be happy but relieved to be warned off a trainspotters' hotel and I do not believe the gay couple wished to stay in a hotel in which they would have stuck out like sore thumbs and not been in harmony with the general atmosphere, any more than I would feel happy in a gay club when the drag act came on, or in a Muslims only or gay hotel. Ergo just out to make trouble, and unnecessary and uncreative trouble that ultimately polarises opinion and plays into encouraging anger and hatred not into "live and let live".

That way everyone can get on with their lives without this kind of troublesome and vexatious litigation.

Jack: "Jack doesn't agree that racism is a religious belief and so it should not be protected. It is just wrong."

Perhaps it's not wrong as far as racists are concerned. Also, I think stoning people as a punishment is wrong and I'll be damned if I'm going to make allowances for religous people to act on a belief like that. We trump some religious beliefs for the good of others.

"As for booking into hotels and doing things unacceptable to their hosts, well Jack says the owner should have the right to say certain things cannot go on."

They do have the right. However, some things are protected characteristics which are exceptions to that general rule, such as skin colour, religious belief, etc. The judgement refers to these in section 4 and goes on to talk about how disputes between two protected characteristics may be resolved.

"For a Christian marriage is not just a legal relationship for social stability and homosexuality is a sin and not a state of being."

Most Muslims think stuff like drinking alcohol and apostasy is wrong and some Muslims think that the law ought to be based on Sharia because that's what Allah expects.

Danjo, Happy Jack has already answered the point about stoning. It is against the law of this country and based on an alien culture. And if Muslims don't want to drink alcohol or have it in their hotels, well fair enough. As for racism, just because someone believes it does not make their belief a "protected characteristic" like their religion, age, disability or sexual preference.

Happy Jack says the court did not try to balance the two protected characteristics. Instead they overrode Christian considerations based on the bible because of their own definitions of marriage and views about same sex attraction. Jack thinks they were sympathetic towards the men and dismissive of the hotel owners.

Happy Jack is asking what harm to society comes from Christians running hotels on Christian lines? You say, "We trump some religious beliefs for the good of others." What good comes from this? The judges could have accepted this was discrimination but that it was acceptable as it was based on a long established religious conviction and single beds were available and there were plenty of other hotels in the area if the men wanted to share a bed.

Jack, the judges interpreted the law of the land and precedents as the final court of appeal. The hotel owners clearly broke the law and suffered the consequences as a result. I'd be surprised if they didn't know what they were doing either.

Jack: "As for racism, just because someone believes it does not make their belief a "protected characteristic" like their religion, age, disability or sexual preference."

Indeed. The protected characteristics have been identified in law by our legislature, though I think you'll find it's actually 'sexual orientation' rather than 'sexual preference'. They weren't found under a stone. There's reasons why those characteristics have been identified.

Danjo, Happy Jack still asks what harm this couple's policy about room allocation caused? And the judges did not address Christian objections to homosexuality, unless Jack missed it. Their job was to balance the two protected characteristics and Jack cannot see where they even tried to do this. Jack understands homosexuals have been treated in bad ways and faced unjust discrimination and hate. In this case Jack doesn't see any evidence for that and thinks the court went too far.

The same as that of a racist hotel owner to a black couple, I should imagine. Why should a black couple need to check first whether a hotel owner has racist beliefs before they make a booking? Why should they have to simply walk away if they simply turned up and the hotel owner told them politely that they'd have to have a refund and find another hotel in the area because he didn't provide rooms for the use of black people? Consider it from the customer's point of view. If the owners of a business has personal issues with the sleeping arrangements or potential sex lives of others then they'd be better running a business which relies rather less on rooms with beds in them, I'd suggest.

Danjo, Happy Jack says that is where we disagree. We have agreed a racist has no proper basis for discrimination other than, well, racism. Being black is not something you can do anything about. A same sex couple could have agreed to have twin beds and respect the hotel owner's Christian faith for one night. Why not? The court could have given greater consideration to this. And the issues of the hotel owners were not "personal" they were based on their faith which make them protected.

Jack:"A same sex couple could have agreed to have twin beds and respect the hotel owner's Christian faith for one night. Why not?"

The couple were to all intents married as the vsrios courts in the process have said. Why on earth should they jump through hoops to make a quirky couple feel more comfortable about them when offering goods and services as a business? If the guests were Sikhs and the hotel owners took exception to their turbans because they visually manifest a different religion then it is up to the owners to make allowances in the context of the business rather than the Sikhs to remove their turbans or find another hotel.

Jack:"And the issues of the hotel owners were not "personal" they were based on their faith which make them protected."

You're over-egging your pudding there. The protection is against undue discrimination because of holding their religious beliefs. It doesn't protect the content of those beliefs. The judgement sets out how some of this works.

The court looked at the intention of the law and what is is trying to achieve. This is why I have given an example of a black couple and the harm caused. The owners in both cases are uncomfortable. For the religious owners, they have over-extended their private sphere into their business. Likewise the racist owners. That is the main issue here. The religious owners have not been compelled to commit a 'sin' in their religion, they just feel uncomfortable because of their own personal beliefs and lifestyle. Heck, the visiting couple were hardly renting by the hour anyway. It's hardly unreasonable for a couple to want to share a double bed as in any other hotel. In all probability, they just wanted a place to sleep.

As this discussion is now long in the tooth it is different to go off topic- surely!

Now why don't I go off to visit the Amish and insist on my rights as a modern woman to wear a pair of shorts, and take them to court if they object on grounds of discrimination.

Or go and sit in the middle of a group of praying male Muslims to protest at women having to sit behind the men.

Or insist on my rights to sit in a gay club with a group of women all dressed from head to foot and wearing hats, say loudly how badly dressed all the men are and sue if they throw us out.

The fact is that they pretended that they wanted to join in with a community of rather puritanical Christians so that they could get up their noses with either staying there and having lots of noisy gay sex and then getting up people's noses at breakfast by camping it up outrageously; they thought this funny and clever and a way of making money.

But there is nothing funny nor clever in being rude, ill-mannered, quick to take offence, willing to be an irritant and takers rather than givers. The man in question had to have major heart surgery due to the stress of it all. In those matters alone they show how out of kilter they were with Christian values, and that they are just showmen, out to bully and make a buck and deceitful.

Danjo, Happy Jack agrees the courts thought the couple were married but not in the eyes of the hotel owners. This is because the courts looked only at the civil part of marriage and not the Christian view. And Jack doesn't think it right to call the hotel owners "a quirky couple" as this just reflects your views of religion.

Happy Jack thinks you are wrong when you said: "The protection is against undue discrimination because of holding their religious beliefs. It doesn't protect the content of those beliefs." What is the point of holding religious beliefs if you are unable to express them if they do not harm other people? The hotel owners did not discriminate against the couple because they were homosexual in orientation. They just did not want them committing what they see as a sin in their home. It was not "discrimination over their sexual orientation" but over them doing something.

Happy Jack thinks this is wrong too: "The religious owners have not been compelled to commit a 'sin' in their religion, they just feel uncomfortable because of their own personal beliefs and lifestyle." A Christian sees it as wrong to help someone commit a sin so you cannot say they were just against homosexuals. They were willing to put them in a room with single beds to reduce the risk of them sinning rather than a double bed where sin was more likely.

Happy Jack still thinks the judges failed to give proper consideration to the Christian beliefs of this couple. They were objecting to possible sinful behaviour in their home and not to accommodating the men. This is shown by them not allowing other unmarried people to stay there in double beds. To them homosexuals could not be seen as married because of their Christian views. The court didn't really look at this at all.

Dear boy, you are wasting your time with this 'discrimination' malarkey!

All rights are trumped if you can justify your right with a decadent or dangerous lifestyle that needs 'protection' and to do otherwise would be... well, "unreasonable"!

Ernst heard the other day that smoking will be banned outside hospital areas and the removal of the wonderfully designated 'Freezing smoking cubicles' for those that attend their local hospital and enjoy a puff *no pun intended*.

We are told that it is for our own good and that we place an unnecessary burden on the NHS.

So when Ernst has to attend he will be asked if he smokes and then denied treatment unless he stops (I damaged me foot, groin and back in 2011 and when attending clinic was asked (Again!) by me GP if Ernst smoked but I asked back if there was any proof that God didn't exist. He asked why I asked this and I asked in reply, "as I have damaged me foot, groin and back, what relevance did my smoking have to me injury”. Did he presume fag ash gushed up into me eyes just as I slipped on the ice?. Presume Ernst's GP would not dare ask a homosexual who is suffering from aids if he has been having unprotected sex and now might be the time to stop, else he falls on the ice due to a loose strap from his Cowboy Chaps or dangerously dangling luxury feathered boa)

Would the same apply to hedonistic homosexuals who take it, jacksie style, without protection and give themselves HIV/Aids or pass it to others, will they be refused treatment because;

a) They should have worn protection as this activity will likely transmit a deadly disease.b) They should give up their dangerous addiction to unnatural sexual practices as this is harmful to themselves and others.

Or would this be acceptable 'discrimination' by the state to refuse treatment equally with smokers?

It isn’t going to happen, is it lad. We live in a corrupt state with a politicised judiciary that is as much a victim of PC as the civil service or local government!

Ernst laughed the other day when a think tank body looking into reducing the age of children to have sex advised that anyone that stalks or grooms children to commit sex acts under age should be reported...The only people Ernst sees stalking and grooming our children mercilessly to commit sex acts against their own good is the State and it's think tanks that refuse to let them be just that. Children!

As for the heart condition, I'd say that it's the people backing their case that ought to have recognised some sort of duty of care. On the face of it, it seems they'd rather the case carried on even if the bloke stiffed it in the meantime.

Jack: "Jack doesn't think it right to call the hotel owners "a quirky couple" as this just reflects your views of religion."

Not so. To me, they're quirky on their own account.

"Happy Jack agrees the courts thought the couple were married but not in the eyes of the hotel owners. This is because the courts looked only at the civil part of marriage and not the Christian view."

Jack, you need to understand the associated law here. The various judgements ought to help as it's all set out in those.

"Happy Jack thinks you are wrong when you said: "The protection is against undue discrimination because of holding their religious beliefs. It doesn't protect the content of those beliefs." What is the point of holding religious beliefs if you are unable to express them if they do not harm other people?"

You seem to acknowledge there's harm in the case of racist owners turning black couples away. Besides, I'm right as far as the courts are concerned whether or not you yourself agree. That suits me.

"Happy Jack still thinks the judges failed to give proper consideration to the Christian beliefs of this couple. They were objecting to possible sinful behaviour in their home and not to accommodating the men. This is shown by them not allowing other unmarried people to stay there in double beds. To them homosexuals could not be seen as married because of their Christian views. The court didn't really look at this at all."

No doubt when you've read and digested all the judgements that I've linked for this case, you'll recognise your errors above.

So you seriously think that this couple have behaved in a kind forbearing, understanding, and tolerant way ?

In my view they have not. Since when was that libellous. If I go somewhere and it is a men's only club. or a gay only club, do I go off boo hoo hoo I feel excluded my feelings are hurt, gimme £10K or whatever. No, because I am an adult.

These men are behaving like petulant schoolkids and wasting everyone's time. It is amazingly self indulgent considering the real problems that lots of people face, and inordinately wasteful of resources.

Do you really think that they went there to join in with a slightly puritanical form of Christianity? Were they going to have a prayer meeting before bedtime? Pray and read their bibles? Enjoy the multitude of biblical texts that adorned the B & B? Or have they been having everyone on?

I thought you said you were a libertarian, but this is certainly not "live and let live". It is "I will have my lifestyle and force you to encounter it under your roof whether you like it or not", which is a totalitarian ethic, to which you have previously objected. Or do you change according to your bees in the bonnet from libertarian to totalitarian at the drop of a hat?

And to insist that gay only b &b s should also exist at the same time is unavoidably rank hypocrisy.

If you think that this rationale is vicious I think you are emoting because it is strictly and unemotionally logical and libertarian.

Anyone is welcome to sue me for libel but I don't think they would be in a hurry to, do you?

Lucy: "These men are behaving like petulant schoolkids and wasting everyone's time."

It's curious that you think so when they won their case at the start in the County Court and the rest have been appeals by the owners. Besides, it's hardly been a waste of time at all as the process has tested the issues and set precedents.

"If you think that this rationale is vicious I think you are emoting because it is strictly and unemotionally logical and libertarian."

Actually, I think your words on this thread and on the one above say it all really. I don't need to add anything else to make my point about that.

The problem is with discrimination and rights is that they tend to be like 'offside or handball' in footie...various interpretations are given for similar offences every week that only that confuse rather than enlighten what constitutes an infringement?

Ernst says to DanJo

“The European Court of Human Rights has ruled the whole life tariff given to Peter Moore, the man who murdered four gay men for his sexual gratification in 1995, breaches his human rights.”Pink news reported http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/07/09/uk-murderer-of-4-gay-men-told-life-sentence-breaches-his-human-rights/.

Is the right to kill and not be punished by a life tariff more important than the lives lost...We were told that to bring a death penalty was inhumane and life would mean life to replace this age old 'draconian' measure?

We now know that a whole life tariff only means the length of the life cycle of a gerbil depending on the notoriety of the murder and it's political kudos!

The law can be an ass and quoting the aphorism of lawyer-poet John Godfrey Saxe that “Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made" which only emphasises the unpalatable nature of some sausages and one must not watch them in the making.”

The modern liberal judiciary justifies itself pretty neatly with laws that make society and justice a lottery regarding how to live within a civilised country and that extreme criminality ain't such a blot on society, it has rights that negate the souls unlawfully terminated as to do otherwise by holding them to account would only be "inhuman and degrading treatment".

I don't have much to say about whole life tariffs other than to note that the judgement in July seems to mean that the sentence must be reviewed periodically, not that they must not be imprisoned for their whole lives. Myra Hindley's case springs to mind.

I will on reflection add a proviso to one of my statements adding "in this matter" I think they were showmen and not being honest and straightforward, and notably far off from all those things required of us in 1 Corinthians 13 like slowness to take offence, and not being irritable. Furthermore they do not seem to have dwelt upon the passage in St Paul which stipulates that one should not take one's brother and sisters in the Lord to court and that to do so is shameful. So I wonder whether they saw the b & b owners as brother and sister at all, so whether they were not being false seeking to go to an exclusively Christian b & b. Furthermore we are asked not to "put a stumbling block" in front of fellow brothers and sisters, so that if person x thinks it is ok to eat meat offered to idols (& importantly St Paul thinks it is) but person y does not, then person x is asked to refrain so as not to throw person y. So if they thought their behaviour was OK they should still, if Christians, have refrained from being a stumbling block to others, as well as taking them to court.

And then after that you have to consider what would happen to a heterosexual couple who booked under the names "Lesley and Chris" and turned out to be straight couple into a gay b & b and proceeded to smooch in very heterosexual ways all round the place, or 3 or 4 such couples, completely diluting the gayness. As if they were turned out or refused entry, as frankly that is utterly hypocritical and the gay lobby do not have a leg to stand on.

We already know from Danjo that some clear heterosexual petting sessions in the gay b & b would have a clear "ewww" factor, but a similar "ewww" factor for those who find gay petting "ewww" would seem to be entirely beyone the pale.

I will on reflection add a proviso to one of my statements adding "in this matter" I think they were showmen and not being honest and straightforward, and notably far off from all those things required of us in 1 Corinthians 13 like slowness to take offence, and not being irritable. Furthermore they do not seem to have dwelt upon the passage in St Paul which stipulates that one should not take one's brother and sisters in the Lord to court and that to do so is shameful. So I wonder whether they saw the b & b owners as brother and sister at all, so whether they were not being false seeking to go to an exclusively Christian b & b. Furthermore we are asked not to "put a stumbling block" in front of fellow brothers and sisters, so that if person x thinks it is ok to eat meat offered to idols (& importantly St Paul thinks it is) but person y does not, then person x is asked to refrain so as not to throw person y. So if they thought their behaviour was OK they should still, if Christians, have refrained from being a stumbling block to others, as well as taking them to court.

And then after that you have to consider what would happen to a heterosexual couple who booked under the names "Lesley and Chris" and turned out to be straight couple into a gay b & b and proceeded to smooch in very heterosexual ways all round the place, or 3 or 4 such couples, completely diluting the gayness. As if they were turned out or refused entry, as frankly that is utterly hypocritical and the gay lobby do not have a leg to stand on.

We already know from Danjo that some clear heterosexual petting sessions in the gay b & b would have a clear "ewww" factor, but a similar "ewww" factor for those who find gay petting "ewww" would seem to be entirely beyone the pale.

Thin Franciscan monks and nuns if you are as yet unaware of the Biblical passages from which their titles Brother X and Sister Y come from, or Salvationists.

It's standard!!

"Let brotherly love continue" is just one.

Albeit those who are of the faith here are, me included, often prone to become bickering siblings, far from the better instants of those groups above, yet we would all recognise the description despite our many failings.

There are plenty of books on the basics of the Christian Faith, or you could try googling any phrase you find difficult to understand. For brothers and sisters in Christ you would probably have many millions to choose from.

This is my last word as my supplies of patience and spare time are running thin and you can look up any areas you don't know yourself for you are not a computer illiterate.

It was you who brought up this topic. What were your motives? Only you can know. It clearly wasn't for open debate so I'm off.

Oh for goodness'sake, it's not the meaning of that well-known phrase I'm questioning, it's why you're using in regard to Hall and Preddy in this case. Why would they be bound to someone else's religious beliefs?

Danjo, Happy Jack believes Lucy was referring to the "Canticle of Brother Sun and Sister Moon", composed by St. Francis of Assisi. It is s very beautiful song that praises God for his creation. Well worth a read.

Jack, I don't give a hoot about her religious references. I think it's clear she has made a load of stuff up earlier about the case to suit her homophobia. I'm now trying to work out where this latest stuff about not taking "brothers and sisters in the Lord to court" has come from. It's as though she thinks Hall and Preddy are also Christians. Have I missed something crucial, or is she just a bit of a nutter?

You need to chillax a bit, I think, as you're getting quite confusing in what you are trying to argue. I can't see that the gay couple were Christians, so not too sure why they should be following passages from your holy book. Besides which, even if they were, as you demonstrated in the thread above, not all Christians, all of the time hold a monoline view of what Paul was actually saying or indeed if you should take everything Paul says as 100% correct. Your views on women Vicars, for example, contrast quite clearly with Paul's view on them.

As for for this bit about this gay couple going to a Christian B&B on purpose and causing a disruption.

Firstly a B&B is a place to stay whilst travelling and to eat breakfast (in return for a fee, hence 'bed and breakfast') not a monastic order.

Secondly, if you read Danjo's link, then you'll see section 14 of the initial legal case does indeed cover the suggestion this was all to 'set things up' or whatever. I've copied and pasted section 14 of that judgement for you :

"There was a suggestion in the course of the case, and indeed in some newspaper reports prior to the case, that the defendants were “set up” by the claimants with the assistance of an organisation such as Stonewall. If this were true then while it would not of itself defeat a discrimination claim it would very materially affect the issue of damages. I can see why the defendants might have thought that this was so but I am quite satisfied on the evidence of the claimants that this is not the case and, in fairness to the Defendants, let me make it clear that their counsel, Mr James Dingemans QC, did not seek to run the case on this basis".

Mohammed the great antithesis of the Messiah,Yeshuah being life through the truth,Mohammed death through deceit and a Muslims expertise in deceit is really quite other worldly the noble Baroness included.

My best take on Lucy's later stuff is that she is claiming the Chymorvah Private Hotel was some sort of exclusive hotel for Christians and that Hall and Preddy booked under false pretences in order to maliciously do all the stuff she imagines but aren't backed by the facts.

However, it's just a hotel at the end of the day with rooms that are separate from the owners private accomodation. It currently says on their website "Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples. Thank you." I have seen newspaper articles this year saying that the owners wanted to change the nature of the business into a not-for-profit religious retreat.

The original judge made a statement on the allegations about a setup. Hall and Preddy do not come across as camp to me in their TV interview. Also, they claim to have booked by telephone and were unaware of the special conditions attached. They say they simply wanted a relaxing weekend away as many couples do. Why pick that hotel? Well, it may have been because they wanted to bring their dog and the hotel has arrangements as they publish:

"Children are very welcome and arrangements for pets are considered - we even have a small cattery in the garden"

Thanks for explaining that. It is sometime difficult to get pet friendly places.

I think that the rest of the stuff is in the link you provided on the initial court judgement.I did read it you see, perhaps Lucy should, so we wouldn't have to guess at what she is on about or trying to argue.

An amusing alliance between an ultra feminist and someone who finds women's bodies disgusting and having a strong "ewww" factor. But dislike of the female body is an Ok discrimination, isn't it?? To say heterosexual embraces disgust one is ok isn't it. Even a phobic reaction?

I just question that you want equivalence.

As I would have found the decor rather tasteless and head-on nad would have been glad to be offered another hotel, I still don't rally see why they didn't shrug their shoulders and leave.

The fact that a legal team chooses not to use an argument does not prove the falsity or the truth of it. Indeed if they had been in a Scottish court where probability rules they might have acted differently.

I don't see what is so controversial about following expectation of the house. We do it all the time whether or not we agree with the proprietor, or house owner, whether or not they are contemporary. If asked we take our shoes off in someone else's house even if that is not what we do at home, and even is our socks have holes in. If I turned up at a hotel to discover they had rules, themes or expectations I had not known in the small print I would be grateful if they offered to find me accommodation elsewhere- no problem!!

That is what being chilled means in the real world.

Going to law is something that most lawyers would themselves only do under extremis. Usually everyone but the lawyers arguing the case end up considerably worse off, either emotionally, socially, financially, or 2 or all of them.

Now I am off this blog for Advent.

You identify with people you don't know from Adam and then use them as puppets to fight something for you. I am retiring for a time from the projections and puppet fights; you may demonise me and yell boo hiss and so on if you want, but remember that you do not know me either and that it might be wiser to look within to wonder why you do so. Whether I am here, there, or nowhere you still have your own questions to resolve.

You didn't make it clear whether or not you reply was addressed to either myself or Danjo or both of us.

So on the off chance any of your post was directly at me, I'd suggest to you that neither I or Danjo are in any 'alliance' on this thread or on this blog; in fact such talk is silly to say the least as this is a blog forum, people can agree and disagree depending on the topic.

To labour the point, I'd suggest to you that there have been several times when we have disagreed strongly on various topics. I remember that with one thread got into hundreds of comments. It just happens I agree here with the argument he has put forward.

I don't know if Danjo is a raving feminist, I thought you were in favour of women Vicars etc, as you said in the above thread? I am not actually disgusted by women's bodies, being a lesbian and all.

In respect of the next paragraph, now you may as well be referencing Russian or Korean law there, as the case wasn't held in Scotland.

We've already talked about the merits of this case, but let us remind ourselves that the rules of the hotel owners was that they didn't want people who were not married sharing a double bed together. Except that the couple in question were in a civil partnership...

As for the last bit, Lucy, "eh?" is all I have to say to your last paragraph. You've completely lost me, so I can't even attempt to discuss that with you. Projections and puppet fights? What are you on about?

Lucy: "An amusing alliance between an ultra feminist and someone who finds women's bodies disgusting and having a strong "ewww" factor."

I don't find the bodies of women disgusting at all. I don't find them sexually attractive, f'sure, but that ought to come as no surprise. I'm not keen on seeing couples making out to be honest, and that applied to both straight and gay couples.

"But dislike of the female body is an Ok discrimination, isn't it?? To say heterosexual embraces disgust one is ok isn't it. Even a phobic reaction?"

It's no wonder you've struggled so much with the arguments in this case if you think disliking something amounts to illegal discrimination. I'm not sure that you quite get the issues at all, really.

"The fact that a legal team chooses not to use an argument does not prove the falsity or the truth of it. Indeed if they had been in a Scottish court where probability rules they might have acted differently."

The judge was satisfied by the account and he had the details before him. You, however, have made a whole raft of stuff up in the absence of evidence because you're a vicious homophobe by the look of it.

"I don't see what is so controversial about following expectation of the house. We do it all the time whether or not we agree with the proprietor, or house owner, whether or not they are contemporary."

The law in some cases forbids discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics, including holding religious beliefs, disability, gender, and sexual orientation. It's not hard to grasp the notion even if you don't agree with it. The owners broke the law and suffered the consequences. Had a racist owner turned away a black couple on the basis of race, even if that was the expectation of the house, he would have broken the law too.

"Going to law is something that most lawyers would themselves only do under extremis. Usually everyone but the lawyers arguing the case end up considerably worse off, either emotionally, socially, financially, or 2 or all of them."

Lawyers don't go to the law. A solicitor acting on behalf of his client instruct a barrister to act of the client's behalf in court. Preddy and Hall took the owners to County Court, backed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in order to test the new law I expect, and won their case because the owners had broken the law. The owners appealed first to the High Court and then to the Supreme Court, backed by the Christian Institute in order to test the principles I expect, and they lost both times. We are in a better place now because precedent has been set. I warned at the time that the Christian Institute was taking a big risk pushing it to the Supreme Corut because it was possible it would not go their way. Also, the backers funded the cases on each side and, as far as I know, the Equality and Human Rights Commission didn't enforce costs.

"Now I am off this blog for Advent."

Perhaps you could spend the time learning about the case so that next time you don't look like a clueless fool, and also reflecting on whether your vicious homophobia, as evidence by some of the ungrounded and nasty accusations you've written about the couple, is appropriate for a Christian.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)